The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers· 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you don't need to vote again after nominating; per WP:AFD decisions are made on the basis of discussion and consensus, not 'counting heads'. Walton monarchist89 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much does it matter? I feel more comfortable doing it this way... - Francis Tyers· 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.